I don't care if people get grief for it. How people are treated is irrelevant to the argument.

Quote:

I'm not saying it's wrong, but G-supportrs keep claiming that the "G" is some pillar of righteousness,

Strawman. That's not waht's being discussed here. I've never claimed that G is a pillar of righteousness. What i have pointed out was that some of the claims brought forth to indicate unethical behavior at a company level were bogus.

Quote:

or monument to "free", and "open", when it isn't the case.

I have not dicussed free or open at all. Why are you shifting the goalpoats EdM?

Quote:

Representatives of the company can say it all they like, but it doesn't make it true. They can repeat it over, and over, and that doesn't make it true. IF you look at their roadmap/track record of late (um, just "google" it) they seem to be demonstrating the mirror opposite.

This is not an argument. If you have an actual argument that is based on what i said, i'm happy to hear it.

Quote:

I've been saying it for a while now, that if people knew how Google was actually run - if people were aware - I believe that people would care a lot more. They just don't know. Dame with Facebook.

How is Google actually run?

I ask because i actually have some pretty familiar understandings with how it's actually run. Indeed, i've contributed a lot of first hand experience with how its run to this very thread. So i'm definitely curious to hear about what you're talking about.

Yep, and most of the time they get grief for it. I'm not saying it's wrong, but G-supportrs keep claiming that the "G" is some pillar of righteousness, or monument to "free", and "open", when it isn't the case. Representatives of the company can say it all they like, but it doesn't make it true. They can repeat it over, and over, and that doesn't make it true. IF you look at their roadmap/track record of late (um, just "google" it) they seem to be demonstrating the mirror opposite.

This is called a strawman. Individual people respond to you, and to avoid having to address any of the points, you refer to faceless, vaporous "G-supporters".

This is more reflective of your pathology. This infantile obsession with partisanship towards or against particular companies.

You make a bunch of baseless claims. People point out flaws in what you've stated. You flail wildly and talk in generalities, move goalposts, fail to back up your statements, change the subject when your statements are challenged.. all in all employing a pretty standard set of misdirectionary tactics.

All the while linking to the blog posts of a pundit who is paid by a company opposing and suing the company you happen to not like.

If you divide the argument into "G-supporters" and "G-detractors", it's because you yourself are an extremist and a partisan in this debate. Most people aren't. They just look extreme to you because of where you stand.

Yep, and most of the time they get grief for it. I'm not saying it's wrong, but G-supportrs keep claiming that the "G" is some pillar of righteousness, or monument to "free", and "open", when it isn't the case. Representatives of the company can say it all they like, but it doesn't make it true. They can repeat it over, and over, and that doesn't make it true. IF you look at their roadmap/track record of late (um, just "google" it) they seem to be demonstrating the mirror opposite.

EDIT: BTW, can no one explain Google's use of "shady subcontractors" here? If that info got out into the general media where people actually heard about it often enough, do you suppose it would have a negative impact?

I've been saying it for a while now, that if people knew how Google was actually run - if people were aware - I believe that people would care a lot more. They just don't know. Dame with Facebook.

You seem to make some serious claims here (vague but serious). The problem is--you haven't backed up a single one.

As for "shady subcontractors"--that is a personal opinion by someone. Could be any number of things. Maybe they were Goth and the Google employee isn't.

Echo, why are you reven responding? After EdM's cowardly refusal to even respond to the critiques made by him last time, you can certainly tell that he's a troll who isn't actually interested in a real debate on the topic.

Cowardly? Really? Listen Meta, just because you might not like what' staring you right in the face, well. . .

Just remember, Google, and it's supporters are the folks claiming the company is the "good guy", and the one to "trust". They aren't living up to it. It's that simple, and really doesn't require endless debate. Besides, as you noted when alluding to *my* posts; people can say whatever the heck they want. Anyone can have an opinion. What matters in the end is who is right. And it doesn't matter whether the end result was achieved from arduous "debate* (not that winning debates on the Internet amounts to anything), an educated "hunch", or a simple lucky guess.

In Google's case, they're the entity preaching "Don't be evil", and it's up to them to prove to the rest of the world that they stand by that mantra. They aren't. But getting back to our earlier posts . . .

One needn't have worked for a company, nor do they need intricate knowledge of all the details of "how a company is being run" to get a sense (in general) of what's likely going on (re: Google); no more more so than someone needing to be a certified mechanic . . . errrr. . . automobile technician to know that there's a problem when the brakes are squealing - could be nothing (dust/glaze), or it could be something else. The car might look fine, but in reality, there is something amiss. That can hold true for just about anything. I look at Google and have come to understand that what I read, and hear is very much at odds with what the company is preaching. Are you going to sit there and have us believe that Google has done nothing that is at odds with the image it's attempting portray, and the messages it's trying to broadcast? I'm sure we can play Link-a-roo all day, but to what end?

For me (and others) Google has changed. It isn't the simple "search company" I once remembered. Sure, they might have been an "ad" company from the very beginning, but it certainly was less obvious than it is now. Truthfully? I rarely click on ads (if ever), but more importantly, I do not wish to have all my data, information, search requests, you name it, collected together and used to parade in front of marketers, and advertisers so they can target me with laser-guided precision with ads Google can charge more for. I don't want to be the livestock/produce being bred, and grown for someone else's market where I'm the product being sold. Instead, I'd much rather remain a customer, and seek out "products" on my own, and in the manner I'm most comfortable with.

Lastly, I'm sorry if I can't participate as much or reply as thoroughly as you guys do. I've mentioned it numerous times, and just don't see how you guys find all this time to post here. I don't have the time to sit here and debate to the Nth degree over Every. Single. Little. Detail.

Just remember, Google, and it's supporters are the folks claiming the company is the "good guy", and the one to "trust". They aren't living up to it. It's that simple, and really doesn't require endless debate. ...I don't have the time to sit here and debate to the Nth degree over Every. Single. Little. Detail.

In other words, you want to take little unsubstantiated potshots like this:

Ed M. wrote:

I used to like Google, but it's clear (as it should be to others (hello ZeroZanzibar) that Google is not our friend.

Ed M. wrote:

Right now Google reminds me of an undisciplined, punk kid running amok around the neighborhood causing all sorts of mischief without any regard for anyone else.

Ed M. wrote:

I said it before what Google does is akin to what pimps and drug dealers do to build a market for their poisons.

Ed M. wrote:

The fact that Google is so fucking arrogant (yeah, I know you luv em red), and on top of that feels so fucking entitled that they do as they please (with blatant disregard!) should be enough cause for concern.

Ed M. wrote:

No one up until Google has ever displayed such an arrogant disregard for other's IP.

Ed M. wrote:

It's clear that the jury believes that there was intent by Google to do whatever it took to accomplish their goals - even if it meant pilfering other's IP.

Ed M. wrote:

Perhaps "good ethics" is understood differently at the Goog.

Ed M. wrote:

Representatives of the company can say it all they like, but it doesn't make it true. They can repeat it over, and over, and that doesn't make it true.

And then you run when people demand support for these assertions. I think that is funny. Cowardly too. I've got no skin in this game, so from an objective viewpoint, you are looking pretty bad here Ed M. If you have respect for this forum and the people in it, you would know that most of us are not convinced by repetition and strong opinions. It takes evidence; facts and logic. Even if by some miracle you end up being right in this particular case, nobody is going to give you credit. You aren't convincing anyone with the garbage you're writing here.

Apple, Google, MS - they're all after our money first and foremost above all else. If you don't agree, then I believe you're letting your emotions speak for you.

Not exactly. MS and Apple are after _our_ money. Google is after _advertisers'_ money, using us as the bait. There is a difference.

Meh.

I can take out "our" if you like.

The point being, none of these companies have any other goal at the top of the list than "make money".

Sure. But in business, the successful relationship with the customer is (generally) key to success in making money. MS and Apple have _us_ (and our employers) as their primary customers. Google and Facebook have the advertisers as their primary customer. Again, it does make a difference.

Echo, why are you reven responding? After EdM's cowardly refusal to even respond to the critiques made by him last time, you can certainly tell that he's a troll who isn't actually interested in a real debate on the topic.

You know, when Ed starts trolling the hell of threads, you guys could hit the report button. Its what I do. This forum does have rules, although they're lightly enforced. In theory all his lying and trolling is against the rules. I don't see why you should have to put up with his abuse.

That I still haven't seen Jades question answered about what Android handset owners are using their devices for given the huge number of daily activations?

That Apple isn't doomed and going out of business rsn?

That the record labels wasn't a giant cartel that needed to be reined in?

That book publishers aren't just as much a bunch of robber barons as the RIAA/MPAA, but that Amazon isn't much better, and who's actions could actually be worse for the industry? Authors getting shafted? Less quality material?

Or maybe It's because I've been secretly hoarding Apple shares leading folks to believe I have no real interest in seeing Apple succeed; how about that? (BTW: Apple stock has been good to me).

So, what have I lied about? I've posted my views on the things I listed above, so what?

It seems that Google's argument is that it's "fair use" argument rests on the notion that they needed the code they pilfered for "interoperability"; except Android, and Java are not interoperable.

On neogaf, sites can be banned. I never thought i'd want that feature on ars. Now i do. Please make FOSS Patents a bannable site.They are just a PR page for Oracle, OK, ed M? They really just are.PR Page for oracle... and yet you consistently link to them.

Fragmentation is a made up boogy man. It actually is DIVERSITY--and that diversity is what is letting it stomp all over others.

Quote:

That I still haven't seen Jades question answered about what Android handset owners are using their devices for given the huge number of daily activations?

It has been answered MULTIPLE times. 1) They are using the data plan. 2) They are downloading apps (Lots of apps. downloading them faster than iPhone and iOS) 2) They are using said apps. etc.

Quote:

That Apple isn't doomed and going out of business rsn?

Has ANYONE said this, or is this some dumb-ass strawman/red herring?

Quote:

That book publishers aren't just as much a bunch of robber barons as the RIAA/MPAA, but that Amazon isn't much better, and who's actions could actually be worse for the industry? Authors getting shafted? Less quality material?

Apple got caught. I love how your whole world view is controlled by Apple.

Quote:

That the record labels wasn't a giant cartel that needed to be reined in?

More proof that get your talking points straight from Apple.

Quote:

So, what have I lied about? I've posted my views on the things I listed above, so what?

On neogaf, sites can be banned. I never thought i'd want that feature on ars. Now i do. Please make FOSS Patents a bannable site.They are just a PR page for Oracle, OK, ed M? They really just are.PR Page for oracle... and yet you consistently link to them.

On neogaf, sites can be banned. I never thought i'd want that feature on ars. Now i do. Please make FOSS Patents a bannable site.They are just a PR page for Oracle, OK, ed M? They really just are.PR Page for oracle... and yet you consistently link to them.

In regards to Oracle v. Google, Groklaw is just as bad.

This is nonsense. Groklaw is a fantastic resource. They provide transcripts and court documents, and they've been surprisingly accurate.

In contrast, fosspatents provides basically nothing of value. Its just a rehash of news with the Oracle PR spin, repeated over and over. Which would be tolerable except its not even a good or concise rehash. Even when the guy isn't towing the line hes just long winded and kind of spiteful. You can get all of that much better elsewhere.

Edit: Just to give you a good example, in your post here you held up the register (citing fosspatents) as a counter to groklaw:

Well, we know now from the interviews with the jury that groklaw's reading of the jury's take was basically spot on, while in retrospect the register piece looks quite badly judged. Actually, if you look back at this case, groklaw did surprisingly well, predicting about as well as anyone else, and quite a lot better then some others.

It seems that Google's argument is that it's "fair use" argument rests on the notion that they needed the code they pilfered for "interoperability"; except Android, and Java are not interoperable.

On neogaf, sites can be banned. I never thought i'd want that feature on ars. Now i do. Please make FOSS Patents a bannable site.They are just a PR page for Oracle, OK, ed M? They really just are.PR Page for oracle... and yet you consistently link to them.

This is just Ed trolling you. He knows he wrong, and he knows hes being dishonest. But hes not an honest person and he doesn't care what you think so long as he can piss you off so hes going to keep doing that in every thread he can. If it bothers you, report him. If it doesn't, just ignore him.

Florian Mueller is a tool. It's gotten to the point were simply agreeing with him is almost enough proof on itself that you are wrong about something. I've tried talking to him in the past on stuff, but it's worthless.

I like Grocklaw's statement..

Quote:

Which brings to mind Florian Mueller. I thought about making a list of all the things he got wrong, but really, what did he get right about this case? Seriously. You make a list of the achievements. It's like shooting goldfish in a bowl to list all the errors, so it feels mean. But I note nothing in his reaction to this ruling that admits any error.

He is not a PR front man for Oracle or anything like that, of course. He is just so pro-IP that he has no perspective at all on the subject.

The original statement of "Don't be evil" was a 2004 SEC filing that said the following:

Quote:

Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served -- as shareholders and in all other ways -- by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company.

Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a well-run newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers’ payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.

Google has since gone on to do quite a few things that violate the spirt of this ideal -- Google actually has quite a few conflicts of interest with its users, and these aren't always resolved in users' favor. See, for instance, Google's bypassing of browser protections against third-party tracking cookies. Or the deal they cut with Verizon in violation of 'net neutrality principles. Or (and I realize this one is a little more controversial) the fact that they attempted to undermine a legitimate multi-vendor open video standard and replace it with a technically inferior format they de facto controlled.

Even construing this very narrowly to the points specific mentioned (pay for placement/inclusion), guess what? Google shopping is moving to precisely that model. It will no longer provide the best search results they know how to provide. It will provide access only to the information people pay for you to see.

He is just so pro-IP that he has no perspective at all on the subject.

I'm not sure he is even reliably that. Anyone who thinks about it for more than, say, five minutes, is going to want APIs to be a point of competition and not a point of exclusionary intellectual property.

Even Oracle almost certainly consumes more APIs than they produce. It's just the way software works. Until that one changes for a lot more companies than it now does, then APIs are not a good thing to have owned for 75 to 90 years in the way Oracle wanted -- and still wants. It would simply become another pretty stupid legal arms race; worse than patents even. No If it wasn't for the grief that it would give everyone else, it would be fun to see Oracle hoisted -- as it surely would be -- on its own petard; which still would come close on the heels of any sort of victory they could somehow win on appeal.

So, I'm not sure whose "side" this guy is on -- except his momentary paymaster's.

He is just so pro-IP that he has no perspective at all on the subject.

I'm not sure he is even reliably that. Anyone who thinks about it for more than, say, five minutes, is going to want APIs to be a point of competition and not a point of exclusionary intellectual property.

Even Oracle almost certainly consumes more APIs than they produce. It's just the way software works. Until that one changes for a lot more companies than it now does, then APIs are not a good thing to have owned for 75 to 90 years in the way Oracle wanted -- and still wants. It would simply become another pretty stupid legal arms race; worse than patents even. No If it wasn't for the grief that it would give everyone else, it would be fun to see Oracle hoisted -- as it surely would be -- on its own petard; which still would come close on the heels of any sort of victory they could somehow win on appeal.

So, I'm not sure whose "side" this guy is on -- except his momentary paymaster's.

Actually, the general assumption among programmers is that APIs are copyrightable, most of us have documentation giving us rights to use various APIs to go with that understanding.

(this isn't to say that many weren't aware of just how murky those waters are)

Actually, the general assumption among programmers is that APIs are copyrightable, most of us have documentation giving us rights to use various APIs to go with that understanding.

(this isn't to say that many weren't aware of just how murky those waters are)

I think we agree the waters are muddy, but the relief greeting Alsup's decision suggests to me a lot of programmers had more my understanding than yours.

As I have already said, I've been told by pretty paranoid lawyers at my various companies to watch out for a lot of things, but APIs were never one of them.

And, as I read Alsup's ruling (which does admit that some APIs are copyrightable), it seems to me likely that copyrightable APIs will apply fairly narrowly as it seems to have done up to now. In any arena where API reimplementation is a serious issue (especially, as I read the ruling, with modern typesafe languages, which seem to strengthen the "there is no choice" aspect of the ruling) we're going to see competition where we traditionally expect it and should expect it.

Maybe someone with a bunch of Dental APIs or something can manage to copyright their lot. But, things like Samba, browser interfaces, many OS interfaces, and certainly base language functionality look to me like they are pretty wide open after this ruling.

Well hey, G came out ok in the current ruling. That's fine, but the next course is an appeal. If Oracle looses the appeal as well, then everyone who might not agree (and that includes me) will just have to suck it up. That doesn't mean the decision won't be bandied about for some time to come though.

However, after reading Mueller's latest blogs (again, I know you guy's dislike him), it seems that the Judge more or less expected this top go to the Federal Circuit. Perhaps he felt the case is best decided by a court who [presumably] is better equipped, and informed on the matter. Maybe the judge was erring on the side of caution. Whatever the reason he issued his ruling. What *I* suspect is that he's allowing the parties more time to perhaps hammer-out a settlement.

And to say that Android doesn't infringe other's IP is pretty tricky because Microsoft believes that there is *significant* IP being infringed. So much so that the OEMs are signing licensing deals. They obviously don't want to chance it. I don't see Google stepping in and claiming otherwise. The Oracle case is likely only the first "high-profile" case between two giant companies. Just because they fended off Oracle (until appeal), doesn't mean they'll fair as well as other infringement cases arise.

Well hey, G came out ok in the current ruling. That's fine, but the next course is an appeal. If Oracle looses the appeal as well, then everyone who might not agree (and that includes me) will just have to suck it up. That doesn't mean the decision won't be bandied about for some time to come though.

It'll be readily used to show how hostile a corporation Oracle is, that's for sure. As some sort of triumph? Only in that we don't have yet another IP disaster on our hands.

Quote:

However, after reading Mueller's latest blogs (again, I know you guy's dislike him)

Dislike a guy who doesn't admit until late in the game that he's a paid mouthpiece of the plaintiff, and is frequently wrong and portending doom for the defendant? Go figure.

Quote:

it seems that the Judge more or less expected this top go to the Federal Circuit.

Yeah, he probably expected Oracle to take the stupidity to 11, which is why he did a great job outlining why Oracle is full of crap.

Quote:

Perhaps he felt the case is best decided by a court who [presumably] is better equipped, and informed on the matter.

Because they know something that he doesn't?

Quote:

Maybe the judge was erring on the side of caution. Whatever the reason he issued his ruling. What *I* suspect is that he's allowing the parties more time to perhaps hammer-out a settlement.

Unlikely. I expect Google to call Oracle on this stupid little game of chicken and run it to the end. I suspect that Oracle will lose again in Appeals and Alsup's ruling will be upheld.

Quote:

And to say that Android doesn't infringe other's IP is pretty tricky because Microsoft believes that there is *significant* IP being infringed.

Be specific. Patents or copyright? Cause patents are impossible not to infringe upon, which is why they're so dangerous. Microsoft has always said that the Linux kernel infringes, which is why they went on a licensing harassment spree back in 2007 and why they're harrasing Android users today. They've always seen patents as a way to defeat competitors, particularly Linux.

Quote:

So much so that the OEMs are signing licensing deals. They obviously don't want to chance it.

Of course not. The beancounters don't want to spend the money to fight only to lose (cause invalidating a patent or being found not-infringing is a crapshoot) and be forced to pay damages and licenses anyway. Not that, you know, the patents are really valid.

Quote:

I don't see Google stepping in and claiming otherwise. The Oracle case is likely only the first "high-profile" case between two giant companies. Just because they fended off Oracle (until appeal), doesn't mean they'll fair as well as other infringement cases arise.

No, I expect patents to be used frequently and aggresively by large incumbents like Microsoft to harass, encumber, intimidate, and cripple any possible competitors. They've found that Patents are far, far more useful as weapons in a war than for protecting innovation of any sort.

Go ahead, Ed M. Go cheer on this unproductive legal shitfest so long as it feeds your mad Google hate.

However, after reading Mueller's latest blogs (again, I know you guy's dislike him), it seems that the Judge more or less expected this top go to the Federal Circuit. Perhaps he felt the case is best decided by a court who [presumably] is better equipped, and informed on the matter. Maybe the judge was erring on the side of caution. Whatever the reason he issued his ruling. What *I* suspect is that he's allowing the parties more time to perhaps hammer-out a settlement.

Do you know anything on your own about the law (or, indeed, have you read anyone's postings around here)?

Everyone expected an appeal regardless if which way the Judge ruled.

And, regardless, any competent judge writes his or her opinion with the Appellate Court in mind. You act as if this is somehow novel and unexpected.

The idea that Alsup was passing the buck is frankly ridiculous; if Florian really said that, you should stop reading him now.

This is a big time lawsuit, a big time roll of the dice and it was never going to stop with the trial outcome.

But, I don't know why you think that the mere fact of an appeal means anything.

The question is "what are the grounds."

I watched the whole sad and silly SCO saga and SCO did appeal after appeal. Unto bankruptcy and beyond in their case.

Did no good whatever.

Oracle needs good grounds that aren't just a rehash of their existing arguments. Otherwise, they are probably in trouble. The appeals court by and large deals with strictly matters of law. Matters of fact were already settled by the suit. Alsup would have to make a large error of law. He might have in their view, but they aren't going to go for triffles here.

This also means the patent part is basically over because the "facts" as a legal matter are decided.

All Oracle really has is a second bite of the apple on its very expansive API arguments. If it loses, that's pretty much the ballgame. I doubt if the Supreme's grant cert on an affirming ruling because that is (as this layman understands it) decently in line with current law.

However, if Oracle gets to take a mere implementation and leverage it into what amounts to a 75 or 90 year patent then I expect cert to be granted not because Google is a wonderful company, but because it would be a pretty large scale change to the competitive landscape absent some very narrow grounds (that I don't really care about) that somehow turns it for Oracle without being some sort of stupendous precedent for everyone else.

Trouble is, the way I read the arguments, is that Oracle has to pretty much go for broke in terms of arguing for new law. And, forget your clueless friend; that's what we're talking about here.

It's possible they could still win out, but I have to say, there were a lot of sunnier outcomes they could have had, but didn't.

The facts now are:

1. Patents were not infringed. So says the jury. So, that one's gone.2. Copyright, in a conventional sense, never happened either. So, the easy way to get Billyons and Billyons in damages is also gone.3. Copyright is only invoked if the APIs can be treated as copyrighted and even then, only if the appeal turns a certain way. It is imaginable that the Appeals court could come to another conclusion that doesn't help Oracle all that much. They could find different grounds amongst the available rulings that may change the outcome in ways I care about (at least a bit) but doesn't change the outcome for Oracle. It's not clear that there is much money here; it is clear that some "new law" has to be made to get anywhere. Not easy.

Quote:

Whatever the reason he issued his ruling. What *I* suspect is that he's allowing the parties more time to perhaps hammer-out a settlement.

The only reason there will be a settlement is that one side gives up and the other throws the loser a bone just to get it over with. "Settlement" ended the day the jury was empaneled.

The judge ruled because. . .it was time to rule. Oracle got its day in court. It just didn't get the outcome it wanted.

And to say that Android doesn't infringe other's IP is pretty tricky because Microsoft believes that there is *significant* IP being infringed

Microsoft has also been very careful not to go to court about even a tithe of the stuff they blather on about. At least Oracle had the guts to actually sue.

They've been making expansive claims here for years. They blathered on about 200 patents or whatever it was that Linux violated. They can sometimes get parties to sign up, but all that means is they'd rather settle than litigate. No real precedent power, though they will pretend that it is and, apparently, fool a few folks like yourself along the way. Only an actual suit has any real force of law; the rest is negotiations and even bluff. But, going all in with a huge bankroll can win with a pair of deuces.

The closest test there has been so far of all Microsoft's claims (which are mostly bluster to date) was in its fight with the Samba folks.

Samba won, which is significant in that they were substantially "outgunned" by Microsoft.

What are you talking about? Google explicitly called out pay-for-inclusion/placement as something it wouldn't do as part of its original statement of what "Don't Be Evil" meant. Google is now moving to a pay-for-inclusion/placement model for Google product search. None of these facts are in dispute, as far as I'm aware. Google could not be more blatantly violating "Don't Be Evil" here. There was one thing they thought worthy of explicitly saying they wouldn't do in their original "Don't Be Evil" promise, and they are now planning to do it. (And, even worse, they're claiming it will be good for users -- incidentally, using logic that would seem to apply equally well to adopting the model beyond just product searches.)

What's really going on here is that Google, having a hilariously high share of the web's eyeballs already hitting their web properties, figures significant additional growth is going to require them to extract more revenue per eyeball. Which creates an overwhelming temptation to (quite literally) sell users out.

What are you talking about? Google explicitly called out pay-for-inclusion/placement as something it wouldn't do as part of its original statement of what "Don't Be Evil" meant. Google is now moving to a pay-for-inclusion/placement model for Google product search. None of these facts are in dispute, as far as I'm aware. Google could not be more blatantly violating "Don't Be Evil" here. There was one thing they thought worthy of explicitly saying they wouldn't do in their original "Don't Be Evil" promise, and they are now planning to do it. (And, even worse, they're claiming it will be good for users -- incidentally, using logic that would seem to apply equally well to adopting the model beyond just product searches.)

What's really going on here is that Google, having a hilariously high share of the web's eyeballs already hitting their web properties, figures significant additional growth is going to require them to extract more revenue per eyeball. Which creates an overwhelming temptation to (quite literally) sell users out.

ahh--so they are going to a curated store and that is bad. I know--those curated stores are simply evil.

ahh--so they are going to a curated store and that is bad. I know--those curated stores are simply evil.

There's a rather large difference between 'curated' and 'pay for placement'. Apple does not sell 'App of the Week', 'Featured App', top list, or keyword search placements in the App Store. They don't even do pay-for-placement in the iTunes Music Store, despite this being standard practice in the brick-and-mortar music retail world.

In any event, Apple is irrelevant to this discussion. My argument is that "Don't Be Evil" is dead. Google defined "Don't Be Evil" as not selling placement -- this was, again, literally the only thing they explicitly called out. Google is now planning to sell placement. What exactly is your argument here? That Google was mistaken about what it meant by a motto it adopted?